[Transcriber’s Note:
Characters preceded by a caret(^) are in superscript, and are enclosed
in curly brackets, i. e. {th}.
Italicized text delimited by underscores.
This project uses utf-8 encoded characters. If some characters are not
readable, check your settings of your browser to ensure you have a
default font installed that can display utf-8 characters.]
THE
WORKS
OF
RICHARD HURD, D. D.
LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.
VOL. V.
Printed by J. Nichols and Son,
Red Lion Passage, Fleet-Street, London.
THE
WORKS
OF
RICHARD HURD, D. D.
LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.
IN EIGHT VOLUMES.
VOL. V.
[Illustration]
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR T. CADELL AND W. DAVIES, STRAND.
1811.
THEOLOGICAL WORKS.
VOL. I.
TWELVE SERMONS
INTRODUCTORY
TO THE STUDY OF
THE PROPHECIES.
AN
INTRODUCTION
TO THE STUDY OF THE
PROPHECIES
CONCERNING THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH;
AND, IN PARTICULAR,
CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF PAPAL ROME:
IN TWELVE SERMONS,
PREACHED IN LINCOLN’S-INN-CHAPEL,
AT THE LECTURE OF
THE RIGHT REV. WILLIAM WARBURTON,
LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER.
_Ita, si potuero, stylo moderabor meo, ut nec ea, quæ supersint,
dicam, nec ea, quæ satis sint, prætermittam._
Augustin. C. D. l. xvii. c. 1.
TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
WILLIAM, LORD MANSFIELD,
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND,
AND
TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
SIR JOHN EARDLEY WILMOT, KNT.
LATE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE COMMON PLEAS,
TRUSTEES FOR THIS LECTURE,
THE FOLLOWING SERMONS
ARE MOST HUMBLY INSCRIBED
BY THE AUTHOR,
R. HURD.
LINCOLN’S-INN,
MARCH 2, 1772.
EXTRACT
FROM THE
DEED OF TRUST
FOR FOUNDING THIS LECTURE.
An Indenture, bearing date July 21, 1768, sets forth, “That the right
reverend WILLIAM Lord Bishop of Gloucester has transferred the sum of
500_l. Bank four per cent. annuities consolidated_, to the right
honourable WILLIAM LORD MANSFIELD, Lord Chief Justice of his Majesty’s
Court of King’s Bench, the right honourable SIR JOHN EARDLEY WILMOT,
Lord Chief Justice of his Majesty’s Court of Common Pleas, and the
honourable CHARLES YORKE[1], of Lincoln’s-Inn, in the county of
Middlesex, UPON TRUST, for the purpose of founding a _Lecture_, in
the form of a Sermon, _To prove the truth of Revealed Religion in
general, and of the Christian in particular, from the completion of the
Prophecies in the Old and New Testament, which relate to the Christian
church, especially to the apostacy of Papal Rome_: That, in case of
any vacancy in this trust by the decease of any one or more of the
above-mentioned Trustees, _the place or places shall be filled up, from
time to time and as occasion may require, by the surviving Trustees,
or Trustee, or by the Executors of the survivor of them_: That the
Trustees _shall appoint the Preacher of Lincoln’s-Inn for the time
being, or some other able Divine of the Church of England_, to preach
this Lecture: That the Lecture shall be preached every year _in the
Chapel of Lincoln’s-Inn_ (_if the Society give leave_[2]) _and on the
following days, viz. the first Sunday after Michaelmas Term, the Sunday
next before and the Sunday next after Hilary Term_: That the Lecturer
shall not preach the said Lecture longer than _for the term of_ FOUR
YEARS, _and shall not again be nominated to preach the same_: And, when
the term of four years is expired, that the said Lecturer shall _print
and publish, or cause to be printed and published, all the Sermons or
Lectures, that shall have been so preached by him_.”
CONTENTS
OF
THE FIFTH VOLUME.
SERMON I.
False ideas of Prophecy.
2 PETER i. 21.
_Prophecy came not in old time by the will of
man: but holy men of God spake, as they
were moved by the Spirit of God._
SERMON II.
The true idea of Prophecy.
REV. xix. 10.
_The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy._ 21
SERMON III.
Conclusions from the true idea of Prophecy.
REV. xix. 10.
_The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy._ 44
SERMON IV.
The general argument from Prophecy.
JOHN xiii. 19.
_Now I tell you before it come, that, when it
is come to pass, ye may believe, that I am
He._ 74
SERMON V.
Prophecies concerning Christ’s _first coming_.
ISAIAH xlii. 9.
_Behold, the former things are come to pass,
and new things do I declare: before they
spring forth, I tell you of them._ 102
SERMON VI.
Prophecies concerning Christ’s _second coming_.
ISAIAH xlii. 9.
_Behold, the former things are come to pass,
and new things do I declare: before they
spring forth, I tell you of them._ 132
SERMON VII.
Prophecies concerning Antichrist.
1 Ep. JOHN ii. 18.
—_ye have heared that Antichrist shall come._ 171
SERMON VIII.
Prejudices against the doctrine of Antichrist.
1 Ep. JOHN ii. 18.
—_ye have heared that Antichrist shall come._ 205
SERMON IX.
The Prophetic style considered.
EZEKIEL xx. 49.
—_They say of me, Doth he not speak parables?_ 233
SERMON X.
The style and method of the Apocalypse.
EZEKIEL xx. 49.
—_They say of me, Doth he not speak parables?_ 260
SERMON XI.
Prophetic characters of Antichrist.
LUKE xii. 56.
—_How is it, that ye do not discern this time?_ 286
SERMON XII.
Uses of this Inquiry into the Prophecies—Conclusion.
REV. xxii. 7.
_Behold, I come quickly: Blessed is he that
keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this
book._ 333-352
APPENDIX:
_Containing an anonymous Letter to the Author
of these Sermons, with his Answer
to it._ 363
SERMON I.
FALSE IDEAS OF PROPHECY.
2 PETER, i. 21.
_Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God
spake, as they were moved by the Spirit of God._
The argument from prophecy, in support of the Christian revelation,
would be thought more conclusive, at least would be more distinctly
apprehended, if men could be kept from mixing their own prejudices and
preconceptions with it.
The general question may be expressed thus—“Whether the predictions
in the Old and New Testament do not appear to have been so far, and
in such sense, fulfilled, as to afford a reasonable conviction, that
they _came not_, as the text speaks, _by the will of man, but from the
Spirit of God_.”
In examining this question, the predictions themselves cannot be too
diligently studied, or too cautiously applied: But, while this work
is carrying on, we are still to suppose, and should not for a moment
forget, that they _may_ be, what they manifestly claim to be, of divine
suggestion; I mean, we are to admit, not the truth indeed, but the
possibility, of such suggestion, till we can fairly make it appear that
they are of human contrivance, only.
It will not be denied, that the tenour of Scripture, as well as
the text, clearly asserts the divine original and direction of the
prophecies. A just reasoner on the subject will, therefore, proceed
on this supposition, and only try whether it be well founded. He
will consider, whether the construction of the prophecies, and the
application of them, be such, as may accord to those pretensions; and
will not argue against them on other principles, which they do not
admit, or suppose. All this is plainly nothing more than what may be
expected from a fair inquirer, and what the rules of good reasoning
exact from him.
The use of this conduct would be, To prevent, or set aside, all those
fancies and imaginations which too frequently mislead inquirers
into the evidence of prophecy; which fill their minds with needless
perplexities, and disgrace their books with frivolous and impertinent
disquisitions. And, because I take it to be of principal moment, that
this _use_ be perfectly seen and understood, I shall, _first_, apply
myself to justify and explain it.
It is true that _prophecy_, in the very idea of that term, at least in
the scriptural idea of it, implies the divine agency; and that, exerted
not merely in giving the faculty itself, but in directing all its
operations.
Yet I know not how it is that, when men address themselves to the study
of the prophetic scriptures, they are apt to let this so necessary
idea slip out of their minds; and to discourse upon them just as they
would or might do, on the supposition that the prophet was left at
liberty to dispense this gift in all respects, as he should think
proper. No wonder then, that they should misconceive of its character,
and entertain very different notions about the exercise of this power
from what the Scriptures give them of it. Nay it is no wonder that
they should even treat the subject with some scorn, while they judge
of it by the rule of human prudence, and not of divine wisdom: for,
though they would readily own themselves incapable of pronouncing on
the secret counsels of God, if prophecy, in its whole administration,
be regarded as proceeding merely from him; yet, from their knowledge of
human nature, they would think, and with some reason, they were well
able to conceive how the spirit of prophecy would be administered, if
man had the disposal of this spirit committed to him.
Now it happens, as I said, (by an inexcusable perverseness, or
inattention, indeed, yet in fact it so happens) that, to the
consideration of the argument from prophecy, as applied to the proof of
the Christian religion, many inquirers bring with them this strange and
fatal prejudice; and then their reasonings, or rather conjectures, on
the SUBJECT, the END, and the DISPENSATION of prophecy, are only such,
as this prejudice may be expected to inspire.
I. Judging for ourselves, and by the light of human investigation only,
there might be some ground for supposing, that, if it should please God
at any time to confer the gift of prophecy on his favoured servants,
they would be solely or chiefly commissioned to unfold the future
fortunes of the most conspicuous states and kingdoms in the world: that
so divine a power would embrace, as its peculiar object, the counsels
and enterprizes, the successes and triumphs of the most illustrious
nations; those especially, which should rise to the summit of empire by
generous plans of policy, and by the efforts of public virtue; of _free
states_, in a word, such as we know to have flourished in the happier
ages of Greece, and such as we still contemplate with admiration in
the vast and awful fabric of Consular Rome. This we might think a fit
object for the prophetic spirit to present to us; as corresponding in
some degree to the sublime character of a prophet; and as most worthy,
in our conceptions, of the divine attention and regard.
But how are we surprized to find that this astonishing power, the most
signal gift of Heaven to mankind, hath, in its immediate application
at least, respected, many times, obscure individuals, whose names and
memory are only preserved in one barbarous chronicle, hath been chiefly
employed, and, as we are ready to express it, thrown away on one single
state, or rather family; inconsiderable in the extent of its power or
territory; sequestered from the rest of the nations, and hardly known
among them[3]; with some mention, perhaps, of greater things, but
incidentally touched, as it may seem, and as they chanced to have some
connexion with the interests of this sordid people!
Was this a stage, on which it might be expected that the God of heaven
would condescend to display the wonders of his prescience; when He
kept aloof, as it were, from more august theatres, and would scarcely
vouchsafe to have the skirts of his glory seen by the nobler and more
distinguished nations of the World?
Such questions as these are sometimes asked. But they are surely
asked by those, who consider the prophets, as acting wholly on human
views and motives; and not as over-ruled in all their predictions by
_the spirit of God_. For it is natural enough for vain man, if left
to himself in the exercise of the prophetic power, to turn his view
towards such objects as appear to him great, in preference to others;
and to estimate that greatness by the lustre of fame, in which they
shine out to the observation of mankind. But a moment’s reflection may
shew the probability, the possibility at least, that _God’s thoughts
are not as our thoughts_; and that, if the prophet’s foresight be under
the divine influence, there may be reason enough to direct it towards
such scenes and objects, as we might be apt to undervalue or overlook.
It is even very conceivable, that, if God be the dispenser of prophecy,
and not man, all that seems great and illustrious in human affairs may
to his all-judging eye appear small and contemptible[4]; and, on the
other hand, what we account as nothing, may, for infinite reasons,
unknown to us, but so far as he is pleased to discover them, be of
that importance as to merit the attention of all his prophets from the
foundation of the world.
It is evident, then, that to reason in this manner on the subject of
divine prophecy, is to suffer ourselves to be misled by a poor and
vulgar prejudice; and to forget, what we should ever have present to
us, the claim of God’s prophets to speak, not as themselves _will_, but
as they are _moved by his Spirit_.
II. The END, or ultimate purpose of prophetic illumination, is another
point, on which many persons are apt to entertain strange fancies, and
to frame unwarrantable conclusions, when they give themselves leave to
argue on the low supposition, before mentioned.
1. It is then hastily surmized that the scriptural prophecies, if any
such be acknowledged, could only be designed, like the Pagan oracles,
to sooth the impatient mind under its anxiety about future events;
to signify beforehand to states or individuals, engaged in high or
hazardous undertakings, what the issue of them would be, that so they
might suit their conduct to the information of the prophet, and either
pursue their purpose with vigour, or expect their impending fate with
resignation. For, what other or worthier end, will some say, can
Heaven propose to itself by these extraordinary communications, than
to prepare and qualify such events as it decrees to bring to pass; to
animate desponding virtue, on the one hand, or to relieve predestined
misery, on the other; to adapt itself, in short, to our necessities
by a clear discovery of its will in those many intricate situations,
which perplex human prudence, elude human foresight, and, but for
this previous admonition, would bear too hard on the natural force,
or infirmity of the human mind? Some such idea, as this, was plainly
entertained by those of the Pagan philosophers who concluded, _from the
existence of a divine power, that there must needs be such a thing as
divination_[5]. They thought the attributes of their gods, if any such
there were, concerned in giving some notice of futurity to mankind.
2. Others, again, encouraged in this conjectural ingenuity by partial
views of scripture, come to persuade themselves that prophecy is an
act of _special grace and favour_, not to this or that state, or
individuals, indiscriminately, as either may seem to stand in need of
it; but to one peculiar and chosen people, who, on some account or
other, had merited this extraordinary distinction.
Self-love seems to have suggested this idea to the ancient and modern
Jews; and many others, I doubt, are ready enough to suppose with them,
that prophecy, under the Mosaic dispensation, had no other reasonable
use, or end.
3. Lastly, there are those who erect their thoughts to nobler
contemplations, and conclude that this intercourse between heaven and
earth can only be carried on with the sublime view of preserving an
awful sense of Providence in an impious and careless world.
Vanity, or superstition, may they say, has suggested to particular men,
or to societies of men, that their personal or civil concerns are of
moment enough to be the subject of divine prophecies, vouchsafed merely
for their own proper relief or satisfaction. But nothing less than the
maintenance of God’s supreme authority over his moral creation could
be an object worthy of his interposing in the affairs of men, in so
remarkable a manner. To keep alive in their minds a prevailing sense of
their dependance upon him, is, then, the ultimate end of prophecy: and
what more suitable (will they perhaps add, when warmed with this moral
enthusiasm,) to the best ideas we can form of divine wisdom, than that
this celestial light should be afforded to such ages or nations as are
most in want of that great and salutary principle?
There is reason to believe, that many of the ancient speculatists
reasoned thus on the subject of divination. For, as they argued _from
the existence of their gods, to the necessity of divination_; so,
again, they turned the argument the other way, _and from the reality of
divination, inferred the existence and providence of their gods_[6].
In drawing the _former_ conclusion, they shewed themselves to be in
the system of those who maintain, that the end of prophecy is _the
instruction of men in their civil or personal concerns_: when they drew
the _latter_, they seemed to espouse the more enlarged sentiments of
such as make the end of prophecy to be, _The instruction of men in the
general concerns of religion_.
I omit other instances, that might be given; and concern myself no
further with these, than just to observe from them; That the foundation
of all such systems is laid in the prejudices of their respective
patrons; conjecturing rather what _use_ might be made of this
faculty, and to what purpose men, according to their different views
or capacities, would probably apply it, than regarding it, with due
reverence, as directed by the spirit of God. For then they would see,
that not one of those ends, nor any other of human conjecture, could be
safely relied upon, as being that of prophetic inspiration. Not that
all these ends need be rejected as manifestly unworthy of the divine
intention; perhaps, each of them, in a certain sense, and with some
proper limitation, might without impiety be conceived to enter into
it. But neither could it be presumed, if none of those ends could have
been pointed out, that therefore there was no reasonable end of divine
prophecy; nor could it with modesty be affirmed that the noblest of
these ends was certainly that, which the wisdom of God proposed chiefly
and ultimately to accomplish by it, unless the information had been
given by himself.
III. But this folly of commenting on prophecy by the false lights of
the imagination is never more conspicuous, than when the DISPENSATION
of this gift, I mean the _mode_ of its conveyance, comes to exercise
the curiosity of presumptuous men.
“If it be true, will some say, that the Supreme Being hath at any time
condescended to enlighten human ignorance by a discovery of future
events, these divine notices, whatever the _end_ or _subject_ of them
might be, must have been given in terms so precise, and so clearly
predictive of the events to which they are applied, that no doubt could
remain either about the interpretation or completion of them.
On the contrary, these pretended prophecies are expressed so
ambiguously or obscurely, are so involved in metaphor and darkened by
hieroglyphics, that no clear and certain sense can be affixed to them,
and the sagacity of a second prophet seems wanting to explain the
meaning of the first.
Then, again, when we come to verify these predictions by the light
of history, the correspondence is so slight many times, and so
indeterminate, that none but an easy faith can assure itself, that
they have, in a proper sense, been fulfilled. At the least, there
is always room for some degree of suspense and hesitation: either
the accomplishment fails in some particulars, or other events might
be pointed out, to which the prophecy equally corresponds: so that
the result is, a want of that entire and perfect conviction, which
prophecy, no doubt, was intended to give, and, when fulfilled, must
supply[7].
Indeed, continue these inquirers, if our prophecies had been derived
from no higher an original, than that of Pagan oracles, we might well
enough have supposed them to be of this stamp. When men had nothing to
trust to, in their predictions, but their own ingenuity, they did well
to deal in equivocal or enigmatic expression, and might leave it to
chance, or to the passions of their votaries, to find an application
for their random conjectures. But when the prophet is, what he assumes
to be, an interpreter of heaven, he may surely afford to speak plainly,
and to deliver nothing to us but what shall appear, with the fullest
evidence, to be accomplished in the event.”
The invidious comparison, here made, between Scriptural prophecies
and Pagan oracles, will be considered in its place. To the general
principle, assumed by these inquirers, _That divine prophecy must be
delivered with the utmost clearness and perspicuity, and fulfilled
with irresistible evidence_, it may be sufficient to reply, as before,
That, though these inquirers use the words, _divine prophecy_, they
manifestly argue on the supposition of its human original, or at least
application. In this latter case, indeed, it is likely enough that the
prophet, for his own credit, or for what he might fancy to be the sole
end of prophecy, might chuse, if he were entrusted with the knowledge
of future events, to predict them with all possible clearness, and in
such sort that obstinacy itself must see and admit the completion of
them: but then, on the _former_ supposition, that the prophet was only
the minister and instrument of the divine counsels, in the high office
committed to him, they will do well to answer, at their leisure, the
following questions.
“How do they know in what manner, and with what circumstances, it was
fit for divine wisdom to dispense a knowledge of futurity to mankind?
How can they previously determine the degree of evidence with which
a prediction must be either given or fulfilled? What assurance have
they, that no reasonable ends could be served by prophecies, expressed
with some obscurity, and accomplished in a sense much below what may
seem necessary to unavoidable conviction? Can they even pretend, on
any clear principles of reason, that very important ends, perhaps
the most important, may not be answered by that mode of conveyance,
which appears to them so exceptionable? Can they, in a word, determine
before-hand, I do not say with certainty, but with any colour of
probability; what _must_ be the character of divine prophecy, when they
know not the reason, most undoubtedly not _all_ the reasons, why it is
given, and have even no right to demand, that it should be given at
all?”
Till these, and other questions of the like sort, be pertinently
answered, it must be in vain to censure the ways of Providence, as not
corresponding to our imperfect and short-sighted views.
So much for that _capital_ prejudice taken from the supposed obscurity
of the scriptural prophecies. Of _smaller_ scruples and difficulties
on this head, there is no end.
Men may ask, for instance, why the instruments employed in conveying
these celestial notices to mankind, are frequently so mean and
inconsiderable? The subject of a prediction is the downfall of some
mighty state, or the fortune of its governours. Why then is this
important revelation intrusted to an obscure priest, or sordid peasant,
in preference to the great persons, more immediately concerned in it[8]?
Again; some momentous events have been signified in dreams: why not to
persons awake, and in the full possession of their best faculties[9]?
And then, of those dreams, why are they sometimes sent to one man, and
the interpretation of them reserved for another[10]?
Why—But I have done with these frivolous interrogatories; which,
though pressed with all the advantage of Cicero’s rhetoric, have really
no force against _Pagan divination_; and therefore surely none, against
_Scriptural prophecy_; I mean, in the opinion of those who respect it
least.
In truth, they who put these questions (arguing, as they must do, on
the supposition that prophecy is divinely inspired) cannot excuse their
presumption, even to themselves: and they, to whom such questions are
proposed, will not, if they be wise, so much as attempt to resolve
them. For they have the nature of arguments addressed not only to the
_ignorance_, as we say, of the disputant, but to an ignorance clearly
_invincible_ by all the powers of human reason. Now to arguments of
this sort—_I know not_[11]—is the answer of good sense, as well as of
modesty, and, to a just reasoner, more satisfactory by far, than any
solution whatever of the difficulty proposed[12].
Not that reason is to be wholly silenced on the argument of prophecy:
for then every species of imposture would be ready to flow in upon
us. The _use_, we should make both of that faculty, and of these
preliminary considerations on the _subject_, the _end_, and the
_dispensation_ of prophecy is, briefly, this, To inquire, whether
_any_ prophecies have been given—in what sense they are reasonably
to be interpreted—and how far, and whether in any proper sense, they
have been fulfilled: to examine them, in a word, by their own claims,
and on the footing of their own pretensions; that is, to argue on the
supposition that they may be divine, till they can be evidently shewn
to be otherwise.
This is clearly to act suitably to our own faculties; to keep within
the sphere of our duty; and to reap the proper benefit, whatever
it be, of a sober inquiry into the authority, and character, and
accomplishment of the prophetic scriptures.
All the rest is idle cavil, and miserable presumption; equally
repugnant to the clearest dictates of right reason, and to that respect
which every serious man will think due to the subject, and to himself.
SERMON II.
THE TRUE IDEA OF PROPHECY.
REV. xix. 10.
_The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy._
It is very clear in what manner common sense instructs us to prosecute
all inquiries into the divine conduct. Wise men _collect_, from what
they see done in the system of nature, so far as they are able to
collect it, the intention of its author. They will conclude, in like
manner, from what they find delivered in the system of revelation, what
the views and purposes of the revealer were.
Prophecy, which makes so considerable a part of that system, must,
therefore, be its own interpreter. My meaning is, that, setting
aside all presumptuous imaginations of our own, we are to take our
ideas of what prophecy _should_ be, from what, in fact, we find it
to have been. If it be true (as the Apostle says, and as the thing
itself speaks) that _the things of God knoweth no man but the spirit
of God_[13], there cannot possibly be any way of acquiring right
notions of prophecy, but by attending to what the spirit of prophecy
hath revealed of itself. They, who admit the divine original of those
scriptures, which attest the reality, and alone, as they suppose,
contain the records, of this extraordinary dispensation, are more than
absurd, are impious, if they desert this principle. And they, who
reject or controvert their claim to such original, cannot, on any other
principle, argue pertinently against that dispensation.
In short, believers and unbelievers, whether they would support, or
overturn, the system of prophecy, must be equally governed by the
representation given of it in scripture. The _former_ must not presume,
on any other grounds, to assert the wisdom and fitness of that system:
and the _latter_ will then take a reasonable method of discrediting,
if by such means they can discredit, the pretensions of it. For, as to
vindicate prophecy on any principles but its own, can do it no honour;
so, to oppose it on any other, can neither prejudice the cause itself,
nor serve any reasonable end of the opposer.
To scripture then we must go for all the information we would have
concerning the _use_ and _intent_ of prophecy: and the text, to look no
farther, will clearly reveal this great secret to us.
But, before we proceed to reason from the text, in which, as it is
pretended, this discovery is made, it will be necessary to explain its
true meaning.
St. John, in this chapter of the Revelations, from which the text is
taken, had been shewn the downfall of Babylon, and the consequent
exaltation of the church, in its closest union with Christ, prefigured
under the Jewish idea of a _marriage_. To so delightful a vision, the
Angel, in whose presence, and by whose ministry, this scene of glory
had been disclosed, subjoins this triumphant admonition—_Write_, says
he; _Blessed are they which are called to the marriage of the Lamb.
These are the true sayings of God._
The Apostle, struck with this emphatic address, and contemplating with
grateful admiration so joyful a state of things, and the divinity of
that fore-sight by which it was predicted, _falls down at the angel’s
feet to worship him. But he said into me, See, thou do it not; I am thy
fellow-servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus:
worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy._
The sense is plainly this: Direct thy acknowledgment for this important
discovery, and that religious adoration, which it inspires, to God only
who revealed it, and not to _me_, who am but thy fellow-servant in this
office of bearing testimony to Jesus: I said _in bearing testimony
to Jesus_; for know, that _the spirit of prophecy_, with which I am
endowed, and by which I am enabled to foretell these great things, is
but, in other words, _the testimony of Jesus_; it has no other use
or end, but to do honour to him; the prophet, whether he be angel or
man, is only the minister of God to bear witness to his Son; and his
commission is ultimately directed to this one purpose of manifesting
the glories of his kingdom. In discharging this prophetic office, which
thou admirest so much, I am then but the witness of Jesus, and so to be
considered by thee in no other light than that of thy fellow-servant.
It is evident from the expression, that the text was intended to
give some _special_ instruction to the Apostle, whose misguided
worship afforded the occasion of it. For, if the design had merely
been to enforce the general conclusion—_worship God_—the premises
need only have been—_I am the servant of God, as well as thou_—for
from these premises it had followed, that therefore God, and not the
Angel, was to be worshiped. But the premises are not simply, _I am thy
fellow-servant_, but _I am the fellow-servant of those who have the
testimony of Jesus_: which clause indeed infers the same conclusion,
as the former; but, as not being necessary to infer it (for the
conclusion had been just and complete without it) was clearly added to
convey a precise idea of prophecy itself, as being wholly subservient
to Christ, and having no other use or destination, under its various
forms and in all the diversities of its administration, but to bear
testimony to him. Therefore the Angel says emphatically, in explanation
of that latter clause,—_For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit
of prophecy_—or, as the sentence, in our translation, should have
run[14], the order of its parts being inverted, _For the spirit of
prophecy is the testimony of Jesus_.
It may not be pretended that no more was meant by the text, than that
_the particular_ prophecy, here delivered, was in attestation of
Jesus: for then it would have been expressed with that limitation. The
terms, on the other hand, are absolute and indefinite—_the spirit of
prophecy_—whence we cannot but conclude that prophecy, in general, is
the subject of the proposition.
We have here, then, a remarkable piece of intelligence conveyed to us
(incidentally indeed conveyed, but not therefore the less remarkable)
concerning the nature and genius of prophecy. The text is properly
a key put into our hands, to open to us the mysteries of that
dispensation; which had in view ultimately the person of Christ and
the various revolutions of his kingdom—_The spirit of prophecy is_,
universally, _the testimony of Jesus_[15].
The expression, as I have shewn, is so precise as to leave no
reasonable doubt of its meaning. Yet it may further serve to justify
this interpretation, if we reflect, how exactly it agrees with all that
the Jewish prophets were understood to intend, and what Jesus himself
and his apostles assert was intended, by their predictions.
It were endless to enumerate all the Prophecies of the Old Testament
which have been supposed to point at Jesus: and the controversy
concerning the application of _some_ prophecies to him may be thought
difficult. But it is very certain that the Jews, before the coming of
Christ, gave this construction to their scriptures: they even looked
beyond the letter of their sacred books, and conceived _the testimony_
of the Messiah to be the soul and end of the commandment. _The spirit
of prophecy_ was firmly believed to intend that _testimony_, that the
expectation was general of some such person, as Jesus, to appear among
them, and at the very time in which he made his appearance. This,
I say, is an undoubted _fact_, what account soever may be given of
it; and so far evinces that the _principle_, delivered in the text,
corresponds entirely to the idea which the fathers entertained of the
prophetic spirit.
Next, Jesus himself appeals to the _spirit of prophecy_, as bearing
witness to his person and dispensation. _Search the Scriptures_,
says he to the Jews, _for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and
they are they which testify of_ ME[16]. Two things are observable in
these words. 1. If the Jews thought they had _eternal life_ in their
scriptures, they must needs have understood them in a spiritual sense;
for the _letter_ of them taught no such thing: and I know not what
_other_ spiritual sense, that should lead them to the expectation of
_eternal life_, they could put on their scriptures, but that prophetic,
or typical sense, which respected the Messiah. 2. Jesus here expressly
asserts, that their scriptures _testified of him_. How generally they
did so, he explained at large in that remarkable conversation with two
of his disciples, after his resurrection, when, _beginning at Moses
and_ ALL _the prophets, he expounded unto them in_ ALL _the scriptures
the things concerning himself_[17].
The _Apostles_ of Jesus are frequent and large in the same appeal to
the spirit of prophecy. _Those things_, says St. Peter to the Jews,
_which God had shewed by the mouth of_ ALL _his prophets, that Christ
should suffer, he hath so fulfilled_[18]. And, again, after quoting the
authority of Moses, _Yea, and_ ALL _the prophets from Samuel, and those
that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of
these days_[19].
St. Paul seems to have composed some entire epistles[20], with a view
of shewing that Christ was prefigured in the Law itself, and that He
was, in truth, the substance of the whole Jewish dispensation. So
thoroughly, according to him, did _the spirit of prophecy_ pervade that
system, and so clearly did it bear testimony to Jesus! Whence, in his
apology before Agrippa, we find him asserting of the whole Christian
doctrine, _that he said none other things than those which the
prophets and Moses did say should come_[21].
More citations cannot be necessary on so plain a point. And I bring
these to shew, not the truth of the principle itself (which is not now
under consideration) but the certainty of the interpretation, here
given to the text. For I make it say no more (though it says it indeed
more precisely) than the scriptures themselves were _understood_ by
the Jews to say, and are represented by Jesus and his Apostles, as
_actually_ saying, when I affirm its sense to be, “That the scope and
end of prophecy was the testimony of Jesus.”
On this principle, then, we are to regulate all our reasonings on the
subject of prophecy. They who maintain, and they who would confute,
its pretensions, must equally go on this supposition. If the system of
prophecy can be justified, or so far as it can be justified, on these
grounds, the defence must be thought solid and satisfactory; because
those grounds are not arbitrarily assumed, but are such as that system
itself acknowledges. On the contrary, whatever advantage may be fairly
taken of those grounds to discredit prophecy, must needs be allowed,
for the same reason.
Again: On the believer’s scheme, that prophecy is of divine
inspiration, there can be no _presumption_ in arguing from the grounds,
here supposed, in favour of prophecy. Because, though all conclusions
from a principle of human invention, must be hazardous and rash, yet
from a principle of divine authority, many sober and just inferences
may be drawn. For it is one thing, to discover a principle, and
another, to argue justly and cogently from it.
On the other hand, the unbeliever, who regards the whole system
of prophecy as of human invention, must yet be allowed to argue
pertinently from the same grounds, because they are the proper grounds
of that system: his arguments may be rightly formed, though the
principle, from which he argues, appear to him of no authority. The
rules of logic will indeed oblige him to argue on that principle; for,
otherwise, he combats, not his adversary’s position, but a phantom of
his own raising.
Having premised thus much concerning the right interpretation of the
text, and the important relation it bears to the present subject, I
should now proceed to inquire what conclusions naturally and fairly
result from it. For from this assumption, that _Jesus is the end
of prophecy_, it will, I think, follow very evidently, that the
greater part of those objections which make so much noise, and are so
confidently urged, on the subject of prophecy, have no force at all in
them.
But, before we enter on that task, it may be useful to consider more
particularly what the ASSUMED PRINCIPLE itself is, and to pause a while
in contemplation of this idea.
The text, as here interpreted, and in full consonance with the tenor
of the sacred writings, implies this fact—that _Prophecy_ in general
(that is, all the prophecies of the Old and New Testament) hath its
ultimate accomplishment in the history and dispensation of Jesus.
But now, if we look into those writings, we find, 1. That prophecy is
of a prodigious extent; that it commenced from the fall of man, and
reaches to the consummation of all things: that, for many ages, it
was delivered darkly, to few persons, and with large intervals from
the date of one prophecy to that of another; but, at length, became
more clear, more frequent, and was uniformly carried on in the line of
one people, separated from the rest of the world, among other reasons
assigned, for this principally, to be the repository of the divine
oracles: that, with some intermission, the spirit of prophecy subsisted
among that people, to the coming of Christ: that He himself and his
Apostles exercised this power in the most conspicuous manner; and
left behind them many predictions, recorded in the books of the New
Testament, which profess to respect very distant events, and even run
out to the end of time, or, in St. John’s expression, to that period,
_when the mystery of God shall be perfected_[22].
2. Further, besides the extent of this prophetic scheme, the dignity
of the _Person_, whom it concerns, deserves our consideration. He is
described in terms, which excite the most august and magnificent ideas.
He is spoken of, indeed, sometimes as being _the seed of the woman_,
and _as the son of man_; yet so as being at the same time of more than
mortal extraction. He is even represented to us, as being superior
to men and angels; as far above all principality and power, above all
that is accounted great, whether in heaven or in earth; as the word and
wisdom of God; as the eternal Son of the Father; as the heir of all
things, by whom he made the worlds; as the brightness of his glory, and
the express image of his person.
We have no words to denote greater ideas, than these: the mind of man
cannot elevate itself to nobler conceptions. Of such transcendent worth
and excellence is that Jesus said to be, to whom all the prophets bear
witness!
3. Lastly, the declared _purpose_, for which the Messiah, prefigured
by so long a train of prophecy, came into the world, corresponds to
all the rest of the representation. It was not to deliver an oppressed
nation from civil tyranny, or to erect a great civil empire, that is,
to atchieve one of those acts, which history accounts most heroic. No:
it was not a mighty state, a _victor people_—
“_Non res Romanæ perituraque regna_—”
that was worthy to enter into the contemplation of this divine person.
It was another and far sublimer purpose, which HE came to accomplish;
a purpose, in comparison of which, all our policies are poor and
little, and all the performances of man as nothing. It was to deliver
a world from ruin; to abolish sin and death; to purify and immortalize
human nature; and thus, in the most exalted sense of the words, to be
the Saviour of all men, and the blessing of all nations.
There is no exaggeration in this account. I deliver the undoubted
sense, if not always the very words of scripture.
Consider then to what this representation amounts. Let us unite the
several parts of it, and bring them to a point. A spirit of prophecy
pervading all time—characterizing one person, of the highest
dignity—and proclaiming the accomplishment of one purpose, the most
beneficent, the most divine, that imagination itself can project—Such
is the scriptural delineation, whether we will receive it or no, of
that œconomy, which we call Prophetic!
And now then (if we must be reasoning from our ideas of _fit and
right_, to the rectitude of the divine conduct) let me ask, in one
word, whether, on the supposition that it should ever please the moral
Governor of the world to reveal himself by prophecy at all, we can
conceive him to do it, in a _manner_, or for _ends_ more worthy of him?
Does not the _extent_ of the scheme correspond to our best ideas of
that infinite Being, to whom all duration is but a point, and to whose
view all time is equally present? Is not the _object_ of this scheme,
the Lamb of God that was slain from the foundation of the world,
worthy, in our conceptions, of all the honour that can be reflected
upon him by so vast and splendid an œconomy? Is not the _end_ of this
scheme such as we should think most fit for such a scheme of prophecy
to predict, and for so divine a person to accomplish?
You see, every thing here is of a piece: all the parts of this
dispensation are astonishingly great, and perfectly harmonize with each
other.
We, who admit the divinity of those records, which represent to us
this state of things, cannot but be infinitely affected with it:
since, in that case, we only contemplate an undoubted fact, in this
representation. And it should further seem that even those, who
question that authority of scripture, must, if they be ingenuous,
confess themselves _struck_ by a representation at once so sublime and
consistent. They require, on all occasions, to have reasons of what
they call _fitness_, in the divine conduct, pointed out to them: Can
they overlook them here, where they are so obvious and so convincing?
At least, the credibility of such a scheme, as that of prophecy is in
Scripture represented to be, appears not, so far as we have hitherto
considered it, to be opposed or lessened in any degree by our _natural_
prejudices; by the best notions, I mean, which we can frame on this
subject; but is, indeed, much _strengthened_ and confirmed by them.
On the idea of such a scheme, as is here presented to us, I enlarge
no farther, at present, than just to make ONE general observation. It
is this: That the argument from prophecy is not to be formed from the
consideration of single prophecies, but from all the prophecies taken
together, and considered as making one system; in which, from the
mutual dependance and connection of its parts, preceding prophecies
prepare and illustrate those which follow, and these, again, reflect
light on the foregoing: just as, in any philosophical system, that
which shews the solidity of it, is the harmony and correspondence of
the whole, not the application of it, in particular instances.
Hence, though the evidence be but small, from the completion of any one
prophecy, taken separately, yet, that evidence being always something,
the amount of the whole evidence, resulting from a great number of
prophecies, all relative to the same design, may be considerable;
like many scattered rays, which, though each be weak in itself, yet,
concentred into one point, shall form a strong light, and strike the
sense very powerfully. Still more: this evidence is not simply a
growing evidence, but is indeed multiplied upon us, from the number of
reflected lights, which the several component parts of such a system
reciprocally throw upon each: till, at length, the conviction rise into
a high degree of moral certainty.
It hath been said indeed, of this scheme, or way of considering
prophecy, _that it is an imaginary scheme, of which there is not the
least trace in any of the four Gospels; and that it even contradicts
the whole evidence of prophecy, as it was understood and applied by
the Apostles and evangelists_[23].
But what, is there no trace of this scheme in the Gospel, when Jesus
himself _began at Moses and the prophets, and expounded_ [to his
disciples] _in ALL the scriptures the things concerning himself_? Is
this scheme contradictory to the evidence of prophecy, as understood by
the Apostles, when St. Peter argued with the Jews _from what God had
spoken by the mouth of ALL his prophets, since the world began_?
Is not here a series of prophecies, expressly referred to, as running
up not only to the times of Moses[24], but to the beginning of the
world? And is not this series argued from, as constituting one entire
system of prophecy, and as affording an evidence distinct from that
which arises from the consideration of each prophecy, taken singly and
by itself?
But Jesus and his Apostles, usually, _applied the prophecies singly and
independently on each other, as so many different arguments for the
general truth of the Gospel_[25].
Could they do _otherwise_, when the occasions offered, in the course
of their ministry, to which those prophecies were to be applied? Or,
could they do _better_, in their discourses to the people, to whom
the argument from single prophecies would be more familiar, than that
complicated one, arising from a whole system? Does it follow, because
the prophecies were applied singly, that therefore they might not with
good reason be applied systematically; or that they may not now be so
applied, when we have to do with those, who are capable of entering
into this sort of argumentation? Will it be said that, because the
moral precepts of the Gospel are delivered singly, there is therefore
no such thing as a system of morality, or that the subject may not be
treated with propriety, and with advantage too, in that form?
On the whole, the prophecies of the Old and New Testament, having
clearly all the _qualities_ of what we call a system, that is,
consisting of many particulars, dependent on each other, and
intimately connected by their reference to a common end, there is no
reason why they may not be considered in this light; and there is great
reason why they should be so considered, since otherwise, on many
occasions, we shall not do justice to the argument itself.
To return then to the text (which implies the existence and use of
such a system) and to conclude with it. _The spirit of prophecy is the
testimony of Jesus._ This angelic information presents, at first sight,
an idea stupendous indeed, but, on such a subject, suitable enough to
our expectations. It offers no violence to the natural sense of the
human mind; but, on the contrary, hath every thing in it to engage our
belief and veneration.
Such is the _idea_ of Prophecy, contemplated in itself. What
_conclusions_ (of importance, as we suppose, to the right apprehension
and further vindication of prophecy) may be drawn from that idea, will
be next considered.
SERMON III.
CONCLUSIONS FROM THE TRUE IDEA OF PROPHECY.
REV. xix. 10.
_The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy._